1. Water Framework Directive Report of Activity 1 OR Progress with WFD 2005 schemas

2. Two meetings 10 th March 2005 – discussion about –GIS Guidance –Schema 13 th April 2005 – discussion about –Visualisation –Schema Attendees –Germany, Holland, Croatia, Austria, United Kingdom, Ireland

3. Schema work carried out Schema issues discussed with GIS Activity 1 Group 10 th March 2005 1 st draft issued to member states for comment 22 nd March 2005 Some comments received –From GIS Activity 1 Group members –Compiled into schemas issue log Reviewed 13 th April 2005 –Close for comments 26 th April 2005

4. 2005 Reporting Requirements Schemas 4 reporting schemas defined –RBD.xsd RBD summary information Split by reporting sheets –SWB1, SWB2, SWB3, SWPI1 – SWPI9 –GWB1, GWPI1-GWPI11 (GWPI9 not included as at water body level) –ECO1, RPA1

5. 2005 Reporting Requirements Schemas –SWB.xsd Data for each Surface Water Body lake, river, coastal and transitional water bodies –GWB.xsd Data for each groundwater body –ProtArea.xsd Data for each Protected Area

6. 2005 Reporting Requirements Schemas WFDCommon.xsd Reference schema only - not used for data. All common type definitions, enumerated lists etc Extended to include new definitions, lists etc –E.g. Risk Status Code –1 =Not at Risk; –2 =Possibly at Risk; –3 =At Risk

7. Schema Notes Follow requirements defined in the reporting sheets –Cross-reference to GIS Guidance –Use GIS Guidance terms where possible Mandatory elements must exist and must have a value –Rigorously enforced for some elements e.g. EU_CD –For some elements may pass attribute nillable=“true” E.g Lat, Long for Water body

8. Schema Notes Optional elements must have a value where they occur or be absent Some optional elements depend on value of other elements –E.g System B factors should be supplied if System B is used –Difficult to enforce at schema level –Will be validated during compliance checking

9. Schema Notes Restrictions –Enumeration lists (lookup lists) used where possible –All decimals set to 3 decimal places –Maximum text sizes for summary data set to 2000 to minimise database issues

10. Schema Notes Metadata –a reference to any metadata statements may be provided at the schema level, or at the individual waterbody/protected area level. These metadata statements should be uploaded to the WISE server or made available on the internet. URL, reference to uploaded document, text URLs –A URL may also be provided if wished Requires a valid hyperlink/URL format to be provided. Web-mapping system or further information

11. Schema Notes File Conventions –One xml file for each of the four types of schema is required This is on a RBD by RBD basis, i.e. if 10 river basin districts are defined, require 10 RBD xml files, 10 SWB xml files etc) –XML file naming convention is SchemaName_Unique Code for RBD_CountryCode.xml E.g. RBD_UK1234_UK.xml, SWB_UK1234_UK.xml

12. Key Comments / Issues ISSUERESOLUTION/OUTCOME Data duplication, e.g RBD.xsd requires number of SWBs. Can be determined from SWB.xsd Facilitates cross-checking Useful for stylesheet conversion for reports as cannot retrieve data from separate files Move all optional elements to bottom of group to support automatic generation. Will restructure so that all mandatory simple elements to top, with optional elements to bottom Issues with following GIS guidance, e.g water body cannot be AWB and HMWB Initially maintain separate elements, now single element with choice Agree codelists, structures etcRisk Status, Importance code, Water Body Type code, pollutant substance structure etc Consider merging all schemas so that all RBD, SWB, GWB and ProtArea data within same file Has advantages but will make submitted files very large so keep separate

13. Next Steps Compile and assess all comments Implement agreed changes and re-issue schemas by ?? May 2005 Amend WISE to validate revised schemas Amend data input and XML generation tool to match revised schemas Develop xsd stylesheets to produce user- friendly report for RBDs ?